Pages

About us

Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose.
Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion.
SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Sunday, 31 January 2010

We all know that Frank is not the sharpest knife in the box. But why is he so keen to tell everyone? So where is 'Britian'? Is it next to 'Frunce'?

We know that the name of the town is Barking but did he have to take the name to heart?

In an effort at damage limitation Frank desperately tried to claim that it was all part of a cunning plan to get publicity. But did he get the idea from Blackadders's Baldrick?

He certainly is getting LOTS of publicity, but not the kind that will make people want to vote for him!

Frank famously caused a few problems for UKIP during the 2004 London mayoral election. He commented that he would not campaign in Camden because there were "too many gays". He later justified his remarks, telling the BBC "I don't want to campaign around gays...I don't think they do a lot for society...what I have a problem with is them openly flaunting their sexuality."

James Davenport, chairman of Gay Conservatives called for Maloney's resignation as UKIP candidate, saying "Frank Maloney is a dangerous extremist and should resign or be sacked as UKIP's candidate for London mayor. UKIP must back or sack their homophobic candidate."

Boxing promoter Frank Maloney has launched his campaign to become an MP – with posters spelling the word Britain incorrectly.

The posters and leaflets bear the slogan Frank Maloney – Fighting For Barking And Fighting For Britian.

However, UK Independence Party candidate Mr Maloney, below, claimed the mistake was a trick to get voters’ attention.

‘I did that on purpose to see how many people pay attention,’ he added. ‘It causes interest. It means people start talking to you.’

He said he had used the same trick on promotional posters for boxing contests. Mr Maloney, who will stand in Barking, East London, at this year’s General Election, said: ‘I am concerned about the way the country is going. You can’t just sit on your backside and do nothing. I have every intention of winning.’

BOXING promoter Frank Maloney launched an eye-catching campaign to become an MP yesterday with posters which misspelt Britain.

Posters and leaflets bore the slogan "Frank Maloney – Fighting for Barking and Fighting for Britian".

Maloney said the misspelling was deliberate. "I did that on purpose just to see how many people pay attention. It causes interest." He said he joined UKIP as he believes "Britain should control itself and run its own borders and decisions should be made from Westminster".

Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, is expected to be among Maloney's rivals for the London seat.

So he thinks he is bright enough to become an MP. what an idiot.- Liz M, London.

By offering to disband UKIP if the Tories gave an election it proved that UKIP are merely a tool to reduce the BNP vote. A vote for UKIP means nothing.- Ian, North Lanarkshire.

He probably can't read or write in his own language and now he wants to live on tax payers money. Clever,isn't he?. Better stick to boxing, old man.- John Span, London.

It easy to claim the spelling mistake was a trick to get voters' attention after it was pointed out to you.

When he challenged Nick Griffin in a boxing match (Winner Takes All) I realised the man's a moron and doesn't belong in politic's.- James, Bury.

What baloney, it is misspelt! I have heard this excuse many times when someone gets it wrong. I figure if they can't get the spelling right they won't get the other stuff right. And I certainly won't be interested in talking to them either.- Ella, Exeter Devon.

Saturday, 30 January 2010

More than one person has commentated on how haggard Farage now looks. His hair is streaked with grey, he walks with a stoop and he has lost a lot of his arrogance. He appears to have aged 20 years in the last few weeks.

After leaving the EU Parliament he is now more likely to go straight back to his flat rather than head for a long drinking session at O’Farrells.

The Nikkigate affair, threatened legal action over her expulsion , OLAF investigations, marriage problems, resignations, infighting, the Elcom court case and subsequent fine, UKIP’s poor showing in the polls, being forced to stand down as leader, spats with fellow MEPs and the collapse of various branches are all taking their toll on our Nigel.

He is also worried about Monday’s NEC meeting and the possibility that he may be forced to allow Nikki backed into the UKIP fold. If this happens his position in UKIP would become untenable as he was the driving force behind her expulsion.

Our collective hearts weep for him.

Another UKIPPER resigns

UKIP’s desperate attempts to steal the BNP’s clothes has driven yet another UKIPPER into the arms of another party.

Mr Alex Ellis-Roswell's resignation from UKIP is another blow for UKIP’s failing youth section. ‘Young Independence’ has LESS than a hundred members. This is despite Lisa Duffy’s boast that by the end of 2008 the organisation would have hundreds of new members and branches in dozens of universities and colleges. See: LINK

Yet despite this failure to deliver she was later promoted to Party Director and given a huge salary!

UKIP is the only party to reward incompetence with a promotion. But as she is a well known Farage/Bannerman supporter none of us should be too surprised. She is simply getting her just reward for supporting their dishonesty and corruption and for always voting the 'Farage way' on the NEC.

From the Kent News:

A young politician who quit the UK Independence Party over its controversial ‘burka ban’ policy says the group is going the way of the far-right BNP.

Alex Ellis-Roswell, 16, from Canterbury, handed in his membership after UKIP leader Lord Pearson said the veils worn by some Muslim women should be outlawed to help improve British security and to avoid dividing communities.

Announcing his defection to the Libertarian Party this week, Ellis-Roswell – who is a prospective candidate for Canterbury City Council – said his former party was becoming increasingly Islamophobic.

He said: “I joined UKIP about a year ago because I believed they were the only Eurosceptic libertarian party out there and had the best chance of going places.

“But at the moment they seem to be going down the same route as the BNP.

“The burka ban was the last straw for me. I was quite ashamed and didn’t want people to know I was associated with the party so I went quiet for a while.

“It’s sad really because UKIP was starting to gain a lot of support, but then they went down the whole Islamophobia route and I don’t think it will stop at attempting to ban the burka.

“It’s a no-win situation to start acting like the BNP.”

Lord Pearson’s comments regarding the burka were echoed last week by his predecessor and current Kent MEP Nigel Farage.

The Bromley resident told KOS Media he thought banning the veil was no different to asking people not to wear motorcycle helmets in banks, or hoodies at Bluewater shopping centre.

Responding to Ellis-Roswell’s decision to quit the party, Mr Farage admitted his and Lord Pearson’s comments had upset some members.

He said: “I can see how the burka ban might upset some people, but if you look closely we weren’t saying stop people wearing them in the street.

“What we were saying was that if you’re in an airport or on a train, then modern security laws say you have to show your face.

“I’m sorry if Alex is upset, but he shouldn’t confuse that with us going the way of the BNP, because we are not and we never will be.

“But we’ve also had lots of people getting in touch with us – including serving ministers – saying at last someone is getting back to Christian values in this country.”

Ellis-Roswell, who has been home-schooled for the last two years said he was en route to becoming UKIP’s Canterbury branch secretary before deciding to quit the party.

Should he win a seat at next year’s local elections he would become the UK’s youngest city councillor ever aged just 18 years and six weeks.

Friday, 29 January 2010

It can be revealed that Lord Pearson is less than impressed with Nigel Farage and the NEC.

More than one person has been told by Pearson that Farage has undermined his position as leader after our Nigel and the NEC banned Nikki Sinclaire from using the party name and blocked her standing as a UKIP PPC in Warwickshire. She was even banned from attending UKIP meetings in her OWN area!

This followed her decision to leave UKIP's EFD group. This was a decision approved by Pearson during a meeting with the West Midlands MEP. At this meeting he also assured her that leaving the EFD WOULD NOT AFFECT her position in UKIP.

Farage - as you would expect - ignored this promise and carried on regardless.

So what is Lord Pearson going to do? Farage has made him look a fool both in the eyes of the membership and the media. It is about time Pearson showed some LEADERSHIP and told Farage and the NEC to reverse their decision and reinstate Ms Sinclaire.

When will Pearson wake up and realise that Farage has been trying to undermine him as leader ever since he was forced to step down by Wheeler? See: LINK

The NEC meets on Monday. Nikki Sinclaire will be given the chance to appeal. Pearson is supposed to be going.

It should be an interesting day!

Dr Edmond on Nikki Sinclaire

Dr Edmond was a former UKIP MEP candidate and NEC member. He was thrown off the NEC for committing the terrible crime of wanting to do something about the widespread corruption in UKIP.

Here are his views on Nikkigate:

Farage's obsession with EU money and leading a Pan European party is nothing new. During the last Euro parliament it drove Roger Knapman out of the IndDem group to sit with the unaligned Hannan and Helmer as Nikki now does. Roger sought a democratic mandate for his action from the South West membership and received 92% support for his actions. I reproduce Roger's letter to the membership below.

I would like to know your views on an important issue of principle that affects our Party and our cause. I am therefore carrying out this thorough consultation exercise and have pledged to be bound by the result.

I enclose a voting paper and freepost envelope. Please return this as soon as you can. This issue is important because it is about where we position ourselves as a Party. It is also about where our priorities lie. These are the fundamental questions as I see them:

Should UKIP concentrate its efforts in the UK and have only a limited involvement in the European Parliament, or should we put major effort into participating fully in the European Parliament process?

Should we join with other Parties in working for reform of the EU from within (whilst retaining of course our long-term withdrawalist agenda) or should we stick solely and purely to the principle of withdrawal?

Currently UKIP is an integral part of the Ind/Dem Group in the European Parliament. At first there seemed to be some attractions in this, but the way things developed has gave me growing doubts. For some time now I have been arguing privately that we should withdraw.

The recent statement from the co-leader of the Group that he has been converted from wanting withdrawal to reform of the EU is really the final straw. I feel I must now detach myself from IndDem. If I did, I would technically sit as a non-aligned UKIP MEP, like the non-aligned Tory MEPs Roger Helmer and Daniel Hannan who similarly object to being part of a European Group.

If I give this lead I hope fellow UKIP MEPs will follow. I would, of course, remain a full member of UKIP and it would be my intention to devote the bulk of my energies to campaigning for the Party in the South West.

To enable you to pass an informed opinion, I enclose a summary of the arguments.This is an issue of principle and therefore about the direction of our Party. This is your Party and so this is your choice.

Yours sincerely

Roger Knapman MEP

PS Please let me have your views on the ballot paper in the enclosed newsletter.

It is clear Farage is determined to lead UKIP into a Pan European reformist party with himself as leader at all costs. First Roger now Nikki.

In the UKIP constitution it states UKIP is a non-racist, non sectarian democratic party. Nikki as UK MEP, democratically elected, on that mandate is honour bound to her electorate to refuse to sit with the racist, neo-Nazi parties that comprise the non-UKIP part of the EFD group. I unequivocally support her stand on this huge point of principle. Farage and his Cabal are selling UKIP out to the EU. We must all support Nikki in her struggle and let her know she has her support.

Nikki is due to appear before the NEC on Monday to answer these trumped up charges against her. I have been there. It insults Aussie wild life to describe it as a kangaroo court. She will be judged by people like Clark who signed us up to the EU subsidiarity principle against UKIP policy and Gill who waived half a dozen UKIP rules to allow Andreasen to stand as a UKIP candidate and who has already instigated actions detrimental to Nikki. She can expect no natural justice from the NEC but it does not end there. As an elected representative of the UK people Nikki can, and I hope will, seek the protection of the UK courts in this matter so that Farage and his Cabal can be held up to the public ridicule they deserve for their arrogant and self seeking actions.

And another post from Dr Edmond:

I have a strong feeling of deja vu relating to my own experiences of being kicked off the UKIP NEC by the Cabal when I read Nikki's statements about what has happened to her. Her quote to the Birmingham Post, “If you were to ask me whether I am still a UKIP MEP, I would have to say I don’t know.” was exactly my position after I left the NEC September 08 meeting after a torrent of Cabal abuse to clarify my legal position just as Nikki is taking legal advice on her position. Previously Del Young had found himself in a similar position when he believed he had been removed as head of Young Independence.

Similarly I can identify with Nikki's statement, “My fear is that UKIP is breaking the contract it made with the people of the West Midlands, because they voted for a UKIP MEP and that’s what they should get.” I did not want to go on the NEC. I stood because I was asked to by SW members who felt it was not right that the South West, the largest membership in the country, should not have a single representative on the NEC. Like Nikki I felt UKIP broke this contract I had to represent the SW members. I was elected to represent these members not to uncritically rubber stamp the self serving decisions of Farage and his Cabal. Nikki's position is exactly the same. Why should she be tarred with being in a group of Neo Nazi racists simply so Farage could do a bit more grandstanding for his own selfish ends.

Nikki's own website, click here, summarises the powerful arguments against UKIP being in the EFD. I quote some of her points below,

'It is a myth that we benefit financially from EFD membership'

It is claimed that Group membership brings with it money for UKIP. This is completely false. First it would be illegal to pass this money to UKIP. It is for the use of EFD and very restrictive rules apply. Secondly the budget follows MEPs whatever group they are in. If one joins the non-aligned, the EU monies allocated are slightly less but at least you can be in charge of all your allocation. In some instances, there would be fewer restrictions. For example, the UKIP logo could be prominently used with the party and MEP's name. In the first six months of this parliament, the West Midlands' region has not received one penny from the EFD, yet both MEPs would have had over £40,000 to use in that period had they been non-aligned.'

Again similar to my, Del and David Abbott's experience on the NEC, when you start asking questions about where the money is going you are immediately attacked by the Cabal as an enemy of Farage.

' Being in EFD gets us more media coverage'

Neither the public nor most journalists have ever heard of EFD. Our media coverage results from what UKIP, its MEPs and campaigners do and say. When Nigel appears on TV, it is as UKIP. It should also be noted that Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan received more press attention as a non-aligned member than Nigel Farage did when they both attacked Gordon Brown.'

Farage is seen by the UKIP membership as a 'great' media performer only because he snaffled most of the invites. As Nikki says when he is seen next to a good performer like Hannann or RKS he cannot compete.

Nikki's final point,

' Because the EFD group is a precursor to a full Pan European political party'

The current proposal on the table for UKIP MEPs in Brussels is for UKIP to join such a party to conform to the EU plan to entrench the federalist Euro-state:a President, a Foreign Secretary, Flag, Anthem, Police Force, Army, Parliament, MEPs and pan-European political parties. We should do as the electorate told us to do and SAY NO to European Union and to those apparata that help them to remove our sovereignty and our British identity.', is the most important.

Farage's hidden agenda is not to get the UK out of the EU but to lead a Pan European party to oppose the European Commission within the EU, ie Farage has become a reformist not an outer. He has given up on our cause. I fully expect him to stand at the next Europeans for this EU party, not UKIP.

As Nikki's experience shows the UKIP Cabal's ways continues unchanged and until they are removed lock stock and barrel our country will slide further and further into the EU cesspit of rule by political party elites like Farage's Cabal.

Thursday, 28 January 2010

Lord Pearson recently gave an interview to Iain Dale. During this interview he bemoaned the fact that Nigel Farage had resigned as UKIP leader:

Yes, and it's a great tragedy he's gone. I didn't want him to go. He was overworked with his job in the European Parliament. I tried to stop him going and I wish he had stayed on as leader, but he hasn't and he is now our spokesman.

Oh dear. Telling a few porkies to Iain won’t do your credibility an awful lot of good!

FACT: Nigel Farage was TOLD to stand down by Stuart Wheeler.

Here are the details:

The somewhat noisy tantrum thrown by Marta ‘the Martyr’ Andreason at a meeting of the NEC, which culminated in her resignation as party treasurer, was just the start of a series of events that spelled the beginning of the end for Farage’s leadership.

Even before she confronted Farage and Nuttall with what she had found in the books, she had spoken to more than one of the party’s donors.

Stuart Wheeler, whose “hot and cold” attitude towards UKIP owes more to Tory tactics than to his own beliefs, was furious. Then when the Elcom verdict came in, he issued Farage with an ultimatum – “Go now and put Pearson in, or else!”

Wheeler also pointed out that potential City of London donors would NOT even consider donating money to UKIP so long as Farage remained as leader. This was due to Farage’s terrible reputation in The City - Farage used to work there and gained quite a few enemies.

Farage has always been a bit of a Merchant Banker.

So Farage fell on his sword, but not before ensuring that his replacement vehicle, a pan-European political party, was taking shape.

Immediately Pearson was anointed, Farage went to work on his “scorched earth” policy. His press officer, Bridget Rowe, began to plant stories in the press on a daily basis – tax dodges, Tory deals, etc, etc.

So Farage fulfilled the demands of the all-important UKIP/Tory donors, ensured a safe berth in Brussels when it all goes pear shaped, and left UKIP looking like a mess - which of course would never have happened if he was still at the helm old chap!

You have to admire the man, he handled it very well. If only his mates hadn’t got bladdered and talked too much during that long drinking session at the East India Club!

And if only certain City donors had not blabbed about Farage and Wheeler to one of our contacts!

It seems that not only Bannerman is conspicuous by his absence from parliamentary committees. Amongst several points of vital interest to the British economy, discussed at a meeting of the Fisheries Committee (Sept 30 - 01 Oct), was that of reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Several member states, notably Denmark, are arguing for a decentralised free-market approach to the fishing industry, with more autonomy for member states over their own fishing grounds. The Commission is resisting such changes as it seeks to protect its "competences". The beleaguered UK fishermen would benefit hugely from such changes.

So where was UKIP's representative on the Fisheries Committee? You tell us. A look at the minutes of the meeting show that neither he, nor any member of his staff, attended on either day.

Nigel was obviously far too busy to waste his time defending British interests.

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Farage will tell us that the advantage of UKIP sitting in a political group is that MEPs get to sit on Parliamentary Committees.

So what does that mean?

In the EP today, Jan 27th, a very important meeting of the International Trade Committee took place. Miguel Sebastian Gascon, Spanish minister of Industry, addressed the committee on the subject of the priorities of the incoming Spanish Presidency. Relationships with Russia, climate change, and business opportunities with China were discussed, along with the arms trade and energy issues. These are of great interest, and the Spanish minister fell into some traps, which UKIP could well have exploited.

But it did not work that way.

UKIP has two representatives on this vital committee. David Bannerman, who didn't turn up at all, and the Earl of Dartmouth. The latter breezed in 25 minutes after the meeting started, actually missing the entire Spanish presentation. He sat for 5 minutes reading the Financial Times, before wandering out again. Exactly how does that get Britain out of the EU?

Even more amazingly, he was spotted almost an hour later, outside the committee room, with his feet on a table, drinking coffee, and reading another newspaper (the Times). Exactly how does that get Britain out of the EU?

Dartmouth did finally return to his committee, to comment on matters concerning trade with Turkey. Stuttering badly, he told the committee that Turkey has a population of 70 million. Everybody already knew that.

Farage has truly surrounded himself with imbeciles and clowns.

Does anyone out there still believe that the likes of Bannerman, Farage and Dartmouth really care about British interests or even the people they were elected to represent?

There has already been a plethora of comments made about 'Nikkigate' and Farage's part therein, but head and shoulders above all other things, this saga, yet again, remind us how utterly foul, nasty, uncooth, unprincipled, treacherous, self-interested, immoral and vicious Nigel Farage is.

Whatever one might think about Sinclair, she has at least put her hand in her pocket to place funds with the party; she even asked Farage to remain as leader because of the lack of alternative (the letter was widely circulated); she also continues to support Farage in Buckingham and much else too.

Doesn't this tell us that Farage harbours a grudge against Sinclair - whether she is sex-changed or not - and is incapable of any personal loyalty whatsoever - to anyone - ask his wife!

How many Labour and Tory MPs have abused their positions in terms of their financial affairs!

Sinclair has not cheated the taxpayer but Farage?????????

Given that he will not come clean on his vast expenses that he has constantly refused to publish, despite making a promise to do so.

Quite apart from the monies (£100'000's) that have disappeared in his SE Region, one might well ask him, outright, has he stolen the funds. For if not, where are they?

Why the reluctance to honour his own publicly given pledge?

And at least Sinclair has left the EDF group, showing more courage than people like Nuttall and Farage who openly condemn the BNP but then court worse extremists in the EDF, not just for money, though that is important to Nigel, but also because they are not competing with Farage.

Who, in the above light, is more principled - Sinclair or Farage?!

Seriously people, think about that question, and if you come down on the side of Nikki Sinclair, urge your own UKIP MEP to follow Sinclair's example and remove themselves from the EFD!

Hello UKIP Activists, and Anyone still interested at this late date in trying to save British Independence and Democracy from an EU police state,

Years ago it was plain that the UKIP leadership and the UKIP activists were opponents, although the trusting nature of the activists obscured the fact.

Years ago it was plain that the UKIP leadership was self-serving and secretly colluding with pro-EU forces.

Years ago it was evident that the political system was bought-and-paid-for by the corporate cartels that dominate both the EU and Britain.

Years ago it was plain that the British people didn't like what was happening but were fundamentally ignorant about the EU and their own political system, hence politically passive.

Years ago a newspaper journalist interviewed British university students who generally admitted that they could sense that the EU was an evil force, but admitted to factual ignorance about its character,.and so took no action of any kind.

{One may deduce from the last two statements how much POTENTIAL there has always been to mobilize the populace to save Britain !!}

Years ago it was plain that the only way to save British Independence and Democracy from a corporate-cartel-driven EU police state, was to EDUCATE & POLITICALLY ACTIVATE the BRITISH PEOPLE on this vital subject. And to do it via grassroots public education techniques -- leaflets and talk, getting especially to UNIVERSITY STUDENTS [no rescue mission can succeed without university students], going DOOR-to-DOOR [behind those doors sits the General Public, a prey to television propaganda if you don't get to them there] and TELEPHONING.

Years ago it was plain that the UKIP leadership was determined to stop its activists from waging public education campaigns that would effectively educate and activate the British people.

Their real song has typically been: Every so many years just vote some of us into office so we can play the bigshot in Brussels and have a share of the spoils that the EU treats us to there.

And years ago it was obvious that UKIP activists, although well-meaning, were lacking in initiative and basically gutless to do anything unauthorised by the UKIP leadership.

Well, activists, are you still the same? Or does the EU Iron Heel appear imminent enough for you to finally wage that grassroots public education campaign to educate and politically activate the General Public -- in spite of the UKIP leadership?

If you truly wish to know precisely how to go about it, then gather a few of your ranks together and write me. I'll spell out the same things to you that I did to the UKIP leadership and individual activists five years ago. 5 lost years!! And send over a MODEL LEAFLET that doesn't mince words and has, I think, a pretty good graphic

Mike Stagman

P.S. But don't write if you're not serious.

End of letter. Mr Stagman was a long-standing supporter of UKIP.

Open letter to Lord Pearson.

Below is an open letter I've sent to Lord Pearson after reading on Junius and GLW's blogs that UKIPers have been asking who they should write to about the situation of civil war in UKIP.

*The letter to which I refer was published on this forum (British Democracy Forum) 2 weeks ago under the heading - "Why I will not be renewing my UKIP membership in February." (Junius says: The letter can be found here:LINK)

26th January 2010

Dear Lord Pearson,

Please find attached a letter* which sets out why I will NOT be renewing my UKIP membership in February.

After your election as Leader I did not need to wait long to realise that you unfortunately have NO understanding of UKIPs corrupt history nor the damage Nigel has done to the party for his own gains.

Please take it from me that if you do not want to go down as the UKIP leader who presided over its collapse you need to get a grip of Nigel and start exercising some old fashion leadership by example.

However UKIP has built up such a body of distrust amongst many of its members and supporters that I fear it may be beyond repair.

This is an open letter to you that I intend to publish on the Democracy Forum.

Monday, 25 January 2010

The row between West Midlands MEP Nikki Sinclaire and her own party has taken a bizarre twist after she admitted she didn’t know whether she had been expelled or not.

UKIP has told Ms Sinclaire she is not allowed to use its name, logo or “intellectual property” in any of her work.

But it has also declined to throw her out of the party formally. A meeting in the European Parliament in Brussels to discuss her future ended without a decision being taken.

She said: “If you were to ask me whether I am still a UKIP MEP, I would have to say I don’t know.”

But she insisted she would not stand down from the European Parliament, even if she had to sit as an independent.

Ms Sinclaire said: “My fear is that UKIP is breaking the contract it made with the people of the West Midlands, because they voted for a UKIP MEP and that’s what they should get.”

The row has cast a cloud over last year’s dramatic breakthrough by UKIP, which campaigns for Britain to leave the EU.

In a major blow for the traditional parties, it won two MEP seats in the West Midlands – beating Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which only gained one each.

But the celebrations were shortlived as relations between Ms Sinclaire and the party leadership broke down soon after she arrived in Brussels to join Mike Nattrass, the party’s other West Midlands MEP.

She announced she was quitting the eurosceptic group her UKIP colleagues have joined in the European Parliament, called the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, which includes right-wing parties from across the EU.

In her resignation letter, she said: “I have found it increasingly difficult to justify sitting alongside one or two of the European parties within the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group who have a variety of extremist views which includes anti-Semitism, violence and the espousal of a single European policy on immigration.”

Despite resigning from the European group, she remained a member of UKIP itself. But her decision provoked a furious response, and Ms Sinclaire was sacked as the party’s general election candidate for Meriden, Warwickshire.

She was told that her fellow MEPs would consider throwing her out of the party at a meeting in Brussels. But that ended without a decision being taken.

Ms Sinclaire has now received a letter from Paul Nuttall, Chairman of UKIP’s National Executive Committee, banning her from using the party’s “intellectual property”.

She has also been banned from attending UKIP meetings.

However, she has been given an opportunity to reach an agreement with the party after she was invited to attend a meeting of the UKIP National Executive Committee on February 1.

Ms Sinclaire said: “I have been to see my solicitors to find out what I can do.

“What is certain is that I will continue as an MEP, doing the job I was elected to do.”

A UKIP spokesman said: “In effect, Ms Sinclaire is currently an independent MEP.

“All our MEPs signed an agreement to join the European Parliament group that the party decided to join.”

Many UKIPPERS are quite rightly disgusted with the actions of Farage and the NEC.

Ms Sinclaire was assured by Lord Pearson that her decision to leave the EFD would NOT affect her position in UKIP. Despite this assurance Farage and his puppets immediately went on the attack and banned her from using the UKIP name and attending UKIP meetings. She was also banned from standing in the GE as a UKIP candidate.

She was also attacked by Farage on The Daily Politics show. During an interview with the host he mentioned her bankruptcy and tried to link her with the BNP.

UKIP is now in a state of civil war with Farage supporters openly spinning against Nikki Sinclaire and her supporters. The Party is falling apart at the seams.

It is no surprise that UKIP has been called a laughing stock by a fellow blogger: LINK

Sunday, 24 January 2010

We have been asked by several UKIPPERS who they should contact with their concerns about Farage and the current state of UKIP.

These requests follow the publication of a damning document listing the failure of UKIP under Farage and his sycophants. See: LINK

The people behind the document are UKIP members and naturally fear reprisals from Farage and the NEC if their names become public. Because of this we have been asked not to publish them at the present time.

They would now like all UKIPPERS who wish to respond to the document to write direct to the House of Lords.

Do NOT pass your complaints to UKIP's NEC. They will suppress it. Do NOT write to the Chairman. He will ignore it and may even use it as an excuse to expel you from the Party.

Send it direct to Lord Pearson. The address is:

The Lord Pearson of RannochHouse of LordsLondonSW1A 0PW

Tel: 020 7219 5353

When you make your complaint please use the document below. The template referred to in 'UKIP Obstacles' is the section starting with the title 'WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO EX-UKIP OFFICE HOLDERS AND MEMBERS REJOINING?'

Lord Pearson is waiting to hear from you.

UKIP Obstacles

Lord Pearson delegated contact with senior former members of UKIP with the intention of holding small lunch parties at the House of Lord. He has encountered resistance! That is no surprise. Whilst he sorts out this problem a small group is proposing to attack the situation from the flank.

Attached is a template which we hope you will wish to use and return your views to us. We will then present a consolidated concensus to Lord P. (with dissenting views if necessary) so he begins to get a fully rounded picture of the party and hopefully its way forward. No names of respondents will, at this stage, be included in the report.

We want to present this to him before Parliament reconvenes in early January. Would you please firstly indicate that you wish to take part and then return your considered answers in good time.

We consider it is vital, however difficult, that such valuable resigned/removed members should return to the fold,

Our cause is far more important than any personality clashes.

WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO EX-UKIP OFFICE HOLDERS AND MEMBERS REJOINING?

The job of the Leader is laborious including control of administration, financial oversight, choice of personnel, media, etc. There are NEC meetings, election meetings, media appearances, travel to the regions. No wonder Nigel Farage said it was too much for him.

Moreover, the party faces an imminent general election whereby almost all other activity is suspended while a general election campaign is planned, financed and fought.

However, as the Party has wasted the last four years and is even more dysfunctional than it was in 2005 with substantially less members, things cannot continue as before.

This is an effort to find out precisely which matters are doing the greatest damage to UKIP and which areas need to be addressed urgently.

Specifically, what would encourage former key members to rejoin and stop others leaving?

The new Leader

I think Lord Pearson is well respected by the great bulk of UKIP members and is regarded as principled and well connected. His political history shows he puts principle above personal advancement.

There are two question marks:

1. His involvement in perfectly legal but ethically uncertain claims for expenses, etc. He is, of course, far from the only MP, peer or MEP to be involved in this.

2. His imperfect and narrow knowledge of the mechanisms and personalities in UKIP.

So the question here is, do you have any objection to the new Leader as a person?

Policies

Few office holders of members left UKIP because of the broad thrust of its policies although there may be disputes over details.

In recent times, UKIP has added a questioning attitude to climate change policies on a global and national scale. It has also added a more severe criticism of Islam (especially via Lord Pearson). This latter is, of course, the standard position of Christian Europe throughout the ages and in recent times such varied figures as Gladstone and Churchill have voiced similar concerns.

UKIP certainly needs to put out policy papers on climate change scepticism and Islam but they seem to be natural follow-ons to its patriotic, self-government core stance.

The question is, do you have any major disagreement with UKIP political policies?Governance

I think it is reasonable to say that most ex-members and ex-officials left the Party because of governance issues. These are varied but I will try to group them as follows:

3. The failure to adhere to the Constitution.

i. Reporting to the NEC, there should be a political committee which keeps minutes and whose members are publicly announced. This has never been done. The job of the political committee is to make interim political decisions between NEC meetings and any minuted decisions should be reported to and approved by the NEC.

ii. Misbehaviour by the NEC in suspending/removing members of the NEC.

iv. Improper elections. For example, the Returning Officer’s report on the elections for the EU candidate list was overruled.

v. The offer to ‘stand down’ or ‘disband’ the Party at the next general election was made without authority and was contrary to Clause 3.1 of the Constitution.

vi. Suspension of members on flimsy allegations of BNP links.

vii. The conduct of the Discipline Committee.

viii. NEC members have not carried out their constitutional role in having full debates with all relevant information. Some members appear to be ignorant of their responsibilities and are happy to be sidelined.

4. Misbehaviour in governance by the former Party Leader and others or usurpation of power by them.

i. The conduct of the Electoral Commission investigation, failure by the Party to adhere to the rules which it had done under previous Treasurers and the outcome being massive losses and legal costs. Failure by the NEC to control the process. Alan Bown is said to have openly said he will not honour his guarantee. Why?

ii. The failure to establish a UKIP media office. There is only a press office of the Brussels party which is appointed by and reports to Nigel Farage.

There is no system for distributing media enquiries. In any case, the media office should be directed by the Party Leader not from Brussels. Wherever possible, media appearances should be prepared with briefings. In the ‘disbanding’ storm, Malcolm Pearson and Nigel Farage gave contradictory statements to the media and there was no agreed written note of what the ‘offer’ was.

iii. There are no transparent systems of appointing Party staff, nor is there a published list of staff, their responsibilities or their reporting line of control.

Which of the above matters, or any other matters, do you think MUST be corrected before you would rejoin?

The MEPs

The relationship of the MEPs to the Party and their behaviour has always been dysfunctional.

5. There are no clear cut rules about publishing expenses.

6. There is no code as to what part of their salary MEPs would give to the national party on a continuing basis.

7. There is no code about MEPs’ attendance.

8. The procedure for appointing Brussels’ staff is opaque, probably no references are ever checked.

9. There is no financial reporting of the Brussels’ operation to the NEC. (It will be recalled this infusion of cash and resources is put forward as the main reason for having MEPs.)

10. There is opaqueness about who is employed by the MEPs or the group – Croucher? Fuller? Who knows? Who does Andreassen employ?

11. Apart from the doubts regarding her appearance on the MEP candidate list, the promise by Labour and Tories to enact laws not allowing MPs and peers to be non-domiciled will throw the position of Marta Andreassen into doubt.

12. There have been constant media stories about personal misbehaviour by MEPs in Brussels with no action taken.

Which of these matters MUST be corrected before you would rejoin or are there other matters?

Are some problems beyond institutional repair and are simply a reflection of insecure people at the top of UKIP – the lack of officer qualities?

13. The entrapment of Haslam, the former Treasurer.14. Attempts to smear people with BNP connections.15. Bullying behaviour.16. Secrecy.17. The constant desire to evade the constitutional norms.

It is worth noting Samuel Pepys, founder of the Navy, commented “A person who cannot say no is not fit for public service”.

Do you think UKIP suffers from the wrong kind of personalities or do you think institutional order will solve its problems?

In order to tabulate responses, it would be helpful if you would categorize your responses under the headings above.

There may be matters missed out in each section or not mentioned at all which you think are critical.

Please feel free to note these under the relevant section or at the endof your reply.

We note that Nigel still employs his wife. This was despite his promise to Roger Knapman not to do so when first elected as an MEP.

So what does Kirsten do for all those lovely Euros? A bit of research on Germanic folk customs, real ale or how to buy holiday caravans in the Black Forest? Or does she just do a bit of photocopying for her wonderful husband?

No one we know has the slightest clue. Even Nigel's fellow MEPs are in the dark.

Saturday, 23 January 2010

UKIP is now in a state of Civil War. A growing number of members are becoming increasingly angry with the the current state of the Party. The Nikkigate affair was the final straw.

Even former Farage sycophants are now starting to question the wisdom of allowing Farage's stranglehold on the Party to continue unchecked.

These documents are the result.

They were sent to ex-UKIPPERS. The documents call for all ex-UKIPPERS to rejoin the Party.

They then go on to present a damning indictment of the failure of UKIP under Farage and his sycophants.

It is clear that UKIP can only move forward if Farage and his sycophants are removed. They are the problem. They are certainly not part of the solution.

Unless Farage, Bannerman, the odious Nuttall, Denny, Gill, Zuckerman, Duffy, Bloom, Nattrass, Andreasen, Arnott, Oxley, Towler, Ransome, Clark, Smith, Rowe, Croucher and the rest of this rotton bunch are removed NONE of the proposed reforms will succeed. They are all tainted by corruption and will fight tooth and nail to stop Pearson reforming UKIP.

Don't forget that members of UKIP's press office even leaked stories about Pearson to the press in an effort to damage him after Farage was forced to stand down as leader following 'advice' by Wheeler!

Here is the email version:

UKIP Obstacles

Lord Pearson delegated contact with senior former members of UKIP with the intention of holding small lunch parties at the House of Lord. He has encountered resistance! That is no surprise. Whilst he sorts out this problem a small group is proposing to attack the situation from the flank.

Attached is a template which we hope you will wish to use and return your views to us. We will then present a consolidated concensus to Lord P. (with dissenting views if necessary) so he begins to get a fully rounded picture of the party and hopefully its way forward. No names of respondents will, at this stage, be included in the report.

We want to present this to him before Parliament reconvenes in early January. Would you please firstly indicate that you wish to take part and then return your considered answers in good time.

We consider it is vital, however difficult, that such valuable resigned/removed members should return to the fold,

Our cause is far more important than any personality clashes.

WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO EX-UKIP OFFICE HOLDERS AND MEMBERS REJOINING?

The job of the Leader is laborious including control of administration, financial oversight, choice of personnel, media, etc. There are NEC meetings, election meetings, media appearances, travel to the regions. No wonder Nigel Farage said it was too much for him.

Moreover, the party faces an imminent general election whereby almost all other activity is suspended while a general election campaign is planned, financed and fought.

However, as the Party has wasted the last four years and is even more dysfunctional than it was in 2005 with substantially less members, things cannot continue as before.

This is an effort to find out precisely which matters are doing the greatest damage to UKIP and which areas need to be addressed urgently.

Specifically, what would encourage former key members to rejoin and stop others leaving?

The new Leader

I think Lord Pearson is well respected by the great bulk of UKIP members and is regarded as principled and well connected. His political history shows he puts principle above personal advancement.

There are two question marks:

1. His involvement in perfectly legal but ethically uncertain claims for expenses, etc. He is, of course, far from the only MP, peer or MEP to be involved in this.

2. His imperfect and narrow knowledge of the mechanisms and personalities in UKIP.

So the question here is, do you have any objection to the new Leader as a person?

Policies

Few office holders of members left UKIP because of the broad thrust of its policies although there may be disputes over details.

In recent times, UKIP has added a questioning attitude to climate change policies on a global and national scale. It has also added a more severe criticism of Islam (especially via Lord Pearson). This latter is, of course, the standard position of Christian Europe throughout the ages and in recent times such varied figures as Gladstone and Churchill have voiced similar concerns.

UKIP certainly needs to put out policy papers on climate change scepticism and Islam but they seem to be natural follow-ons to its patriotic, self-government core stance.

The question is, do you have any major disagreement with UKIP political policies?

Governance

I think it is reasonable to say that most ex-members and ex-officials left the Party because of governance issues. These are varied but I will try to group them as follows:

3. The failure to adhere to the Constitution.

i. Reporting to the NEC, there should be a political committee which keeps minutes and whose members are publicly announced. This has never been done. The job of the political committee is to make interim political decisions between NEC meetings and any minuted decisions should be reported to and approved by the NEC.

ii. Misbehaviour by the NEC in suspending/removing members of the NEC.

iv. Improper elections. For example, the Returning Officer’s report on the elections for the EU candidate list was overruled.

v. The offer to ‘stand down’ or ‘disband’ the Party at the next general election was made without authority and was contrary to Clause 3.1 of the Constitution.

vi. Suspension of members on flimsy allegations of BNP links.

vii. The conduct of the Discipline Committee.

viii. NEC members have not carried out their constitutional role in having full debates with all relevant information. Some members appear to be ignorant of their responsibilities and are happy to be sidelined.

4. Misbehaviour in governance by the former Party Leader and others or usurpation of power by them.

i. The conduct of the Electoral Commission investigation, failure by the Party to adhere to the rules which it had done under previous Treasurers and the outcome being massive losses and legal costs. Failure by the NEC to control the process. Alan Bown is said to have openly said he will not honour his guarantee. Why?

ii. The failure to establish a UKIP media office. There is only a press office of the Brussels party which is appointed by and reports to Nigel Farage.

There is no system for distributing media enquiries. In any case, the media office should be directed by the Party Leader not from Brussels. Wherever possible, media appearances should be prepared with briefings. In the ‘disbanding’ storm, Malcolm Pearson and Nigel Farage gave contradictory statements to the media and there was no agreed written note of what the ‘offer’ was.

iii. There are no transparent systems of appointing Party staff, nor is there a published list of staff, their responsibilities or their reporting line of control.

Which of the above matters, or any other matters, do you think MUST be corrected before you would rejoin?

The MEPs

The relationship of the MEPs to the Party and their behaviour has always been dysfunctional.

5. There are no clear cut rules about publishing expenses.

6. There is no code as to what part of their salary MEPs would give to the national party on a continuing basis.

7. There is no code about MEPs’ attendance.

8. The procedure for appointing Brussels’ staff is opaque, probably no references are ever checked.

9. There is no financial reporting of the Brussels’ operation to the NEC. (It will be recalled this infusion of cash and resources is put forward as the main reason for having MEPs.)

10. There is opaqueness about who is employed by the MEPs or the group – Croucher? Fuller? Who knows? Who does Andreassen employ?

11. Apart from the doubts regarding her appearance on the MEP candidate list, the promise by Labour and Tories to enact laws not allowing MPs and peers to be non-domiciled will throw the position of Marta Andreassen into doubt.

12. There have been constant media stories about personal misbehaviour by MEPs in Brussels with no action taken.

Which of these matters MUST be corrected before you would rejoin or are there other matters?

Are some problems beyond institutional repair and are simply a reflection of insecure people at the top of UKIP – the lack of officer qualities?

13. The entrapment of Haslam, the former Treasurer.14. Attempts to smear people with BNP connections.15. Bullying behaviour.16. Secrecy.17. The constant desire to evade the constitutional norms.

It is worth noting Samuel Pepys, founder of the Navy, commented “A person who cannot say no is not fit for public service”.

Do you think UKIP suffers from the wrong kind of personalities or do you think institutional order will solve its problems?

In order to tabulate responses, it would be helpful if you would categorize your responses under the headings above.

There may be matters missed out in each section or not mentioned at all which you think are critical.

Please feel free to note these under the relevant section or at the end of your reply.

Friday, 22 January 2010

So even Farage Sycophants 4 UKIP - also known as Bloggers4UKIP - are finally waking up to the fact that their dearly beloved is a law unto himself.

Here is a recent post from their blog:

The Nikki Sinclair Affair

Those who visit this site on a regular basis will have seen two versions of one event posted here, which the Chairman of the NEC Paul Nuttall in his statement simply doe not refer to, indeed I have repeatedly asked Douglas Denny of the NEC and others including Christopher Gill's grandson for clarification of this visit to Nikki's office as clearly two 'reliable' sources have provided two different versions.

Paul Nuttall in his condemnation of Nikki Sinclair does not mention that 'the breach' referred to concerns the allegation made by Nigel Farage on National television. Nikki Sinclair states quite categorically that two of the most senior figures in the party were fully aware she was a discharged bankrupt. She named these as the Party Secretary Michael Zuckerman, who also doubles as the parties legal adviser, and Clive Page, the now former Chief Press Officer for the party and formally a close confident of Nigel Farage.

It is clear for those with an open mind Nikki Sinclair, after leaving the EFD group, and my only comment about that would be that we are told Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the party leader, who has kept silent on this, fully supported Nikki Sinclair in leaving, has been subjected to a witch hunt to justify her removal from the position of PPC, and the possible expulsion from the party.

This once again indicates that it matters not that a member of 16 years standing who has donated thousands of pounds to the party, who has been in very large part responsible for a huge rise in support for UKIP in her region, has had her reputation impugned by the former leader of the party Nigel Farage, for what many have said is his personal dislike of her.

Perhaps they will now realise that UKIP is STILL controlled by Farage. Perhaps they will now realise that any UKIPPER who dares to defy the Fuhrer faces smears and possible expulsion. Perhaps they will now realise that UKIP is NOT a party of free thinkers. Perhaps they will now realise that Farage and his sycophants are leading UKIP to electoral disaster.

Thursday, 21 January 2010

Nikki Sinclaire's formal resignation from the EFD was announced in the EU Parliament on Monday.

Several of Nikki's UKIP MEP colleagues privately agree with her decision to leave the EFD but sadly lack the courage to follow suit at the present time.

One MEP has vowed to leave the EFD but ONLY after the General Election. And his reason for waiting? He is convinced that he can win a seat in Westminster but fears that Farage will block his attempt to stand in the GE if he leaves the EFD now.

Another is 'waiting on events'. COWARDS!

From her website:

Why UKIP should leave the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) Group

The Case for withdrawal

1. UKIP MEPs were elected to represent UKIP and to pursue the argument for EU withdrawal

We stood for election on a platform of principle and clarity. We were elected as UKIP and to fight for withdrawal from the EU. We should stay true to that. We were not elected to join to support the Parliament's agenda and certainly not to work alongside those against withdrawal. You elected UKIP but have got EFD.

2. By sitting with MEPs who are against withdrawal we are compromising our case

In the eyes of the European Parliament and many observers we are seen as EFD and not UKIP. Yet all EFD members, except UKIP, are working hard to make the EU better. They do not want withdrawal. They would not allow the word ‘withdrawal’ or 'independence' to be used in the Group’s mission statement. We are therefore part of a coalition that waters down and even contradicts our original position. We compromise both our principles and our action.

3. EFD helps the EU to work; we should not be doing that

Few people in UKIP understand the extent to which the Party has been subsumed within the group. EFD wants to make the European Parliament stronger. It wants the EU to work better. It argues for constructive reform. On a day-to-day basis it often supports the introduction of directives and policies to expand EU power. The Co-presidents,Lega Nord, call for a single European policy on immigration. UKIP should be on the opposite side – arguing against reform and for abolition.

4. EFD includes some very strange bedfellows

The group contains parties who have a variety of extremist views which includes racism, anti-Semitism and violence. One of these parties, Lega Nord was removed from the last EU group to which UKIP belonged, Indpendence & Democracy (Ind Dem), because of their extremist views. Despite this history, they are now Co-Presidents ofEFD and hold the power of veto on Nigel Farage.

Political Editor and commentator, Seamus Milne, on the Politics Show (16th January 2010) described Lega Nord as "vicious" and said that we “were in bed with some very ugly people.”

In a BBC interview, Nikki Sinclaire MEP and Mike Nattrass MEP were asked, if UKIP was not a racist party why we were linked up to parties like Lega Nord who advocated shooting and sinking ships full of immigrants and also called African immigrants ‘ Bingo Bongos’? A Lega Nord member was convicted of setting alight an immigrant's belongings, endangering their life.

5. EFD compromises our position both in Brussels and in Britain

UKIP has to water down its words and tactics in Brussels so as not to upset other members of EFD who take the reformist, anti-withdrawal line. And EFD will only back UKIP in Britain when UKIP promotes arguments that fall short of outright withdrawal. Leading Economics Professor, Tim Congdon stated in late 2009 that he was very disappointed to see the extent to which UKIP MEPs "had been 'captured' in the sense of not seeing that their job was in Britain, not in Brussels or Strasbourg." UKIP leader, Lord Pearson also recently stated that "our role in Britain is what matters not the European Parliament."

6. It is a myth that we benefit financially from EFD membership

It is claimed that Group membership brings with it money for UKIP. This is completely false. First it would be illegal to pass this money to UKIP. It is for the use of EFD and very restrictive rules apply. Secondly the budget follows MEPs whatever group they are in. If one joins the non-aligned, the EU monies allocated are slightly less but at least you can be in charge of all your allocation. In some instances, there would be fewer restrictions. For example, the UKIP logo could be prominently used with the party and MEP's name. In the first six months of this parliament, the West Midlands' region has not received one penny from the EFD, yet both MEPs would have had over £40,000 to use in that period had they been non-aligned.

7. Being in EFD gets us more media coverage

Neither the public nor most journalists have ever heard of EFD. Our media coverage results from what UKIP, its MEPs and campaigners do and say. When Nigel appears on TV, it is as UKIP. It should also be noted that Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan received more press attention as a non-aligned member than Nigel Farage did when they both attacked Gordon Brown.

8. Because the EFD group is a precursor to a full Pan European political party

The current proposal on the table for UKIP MEPs in Brussels is for UKIP to join such a party to conform to the EU plan to entrench the federalist Euro-state:a President, a Foreign Secretary, Flag, Anthem, Police Force, Army, Parliament, MEPs and pan-European political parties. We should do as the electorate told us to do and SAY NO to European Union and to those apparata that help them to remove our sovereignty and our British identity.

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Nigel Farage is desperately trying to keep his group in the European parliament, the EFD, together. The resignation from the group of Nikki Sinclaire, who gathers more and more support by the day, has thrown a spotlight on the murkier aspects of this group.

The vile racism and homophobia of the Italian delegation, Lega Nord, has been much discussed. Now, however, more details of their political agenda are coming to the surface.

Farage will tell us that being in a group gives more credibility to UKIP's position (which is rarely discussed in Brussels, especially not by Farage, who wants to carve out a career there). If this is the case, it must surely work both ways. Lega Nord will also be benefiting from membership of the EFD. So apart from beating up 12 year old boys because they are black, setting fire to immigrants property during "vigilante" raids, and calling for racial segregation on buses, what does Lega Nord stand for?

Fiorello Provera is one of Lega Nord's newly elected MEPs. Speaking in the European Parliament in October 2009, he proudly exclaimed his party's support for the Lisbon Treaty;

"The Lega Nord , the party I represent, voted for the Treaty in the Italian Parliament and I personally was the rapporteur."

Lega Nord not only supports the Lisbon Treaty, THEY MADE IT HAPPEN IN ITALY!

Nice one, Nigel. Your personal greed for money helped it happen. You would sell out your country's sovereignty for the enhanced salary and benefits of being co-president of a group in the parliament!

Nigel Farage makes Lord Haw Haw look like a patriot, and we all know what happened to that odious little traitor!

And as for the UKIP MEPs... they all know the situation, but in the run-up to a general election they are so scared that the Fuhrer might deselect them that they will turn a blind eye to this treason. Pathetic wimps. The only UKIP MEP with the guts to stand by her principles is Nikki Sinclaire.

We can now reveal that in December further information on Clark was given to OLAF - the EU's anti-fraud office.

This information concerns money that was passed through the business account of an East Midlands UKIP member. It appears that the East Midlands Regional Committee were not consulted about this practice.

Not that we are suggesting for one minute that this could involve money laundering or anything remotely like it! That is for OLAF and the relevant authorities to decide.

UKIP East Midlands is now in a state of collapse. Apathetic leadership, Clark's TOTAL lack of interest in the branches or preparing for the General Election are all to blame.

Clark's ONLY concern is staying on the EU Gravy Train for another five years. He can't wait to start collecting that FAT EU pension at YOUR expense! That's why he supports giving MORE power to the EU! Even Gerard Batten condemned him for it! See: LINK

Branches across the Region are closing. UKIP Boston - formally one of UKIP's strongest areas - is now all but dead. The BNP has now replaced UKIP in that town as the voice of protest.

The Regional Organiser - Don Ransom - is now a convicted drunk driver - Boston Magistrates Court number URN 32 C80333909. That will hardly help UKIP in the run up to the GE!

Derek Clark faces possible legal action over his alleged misuse of EU funds. Indeed, late last year OLAF officials visited Britain to interview several people in the East Midlands and elsewhere.

Clark has already been the subject of some press interest in the Eastern Region:

Euro MP under investigation by fraud squad

A FRAUD investigation has been launched into the activities of an East Midlands European politician.

Derek Clark was re-elected as an MEP for the East Midlands, covering Derbyshire, following the June 4 elections.

But the United Kingdom Independence Party MEP has been under investigation by the European anti-fraud office, OLAF, for more than a year.

When the Telegraph asked the fraud office what the investigation was about and when it was due to be completed, it said it had no comment to make.

Mr Clark said he was aware of the investigation but had not been informed about what it concerned.

He said: "I know nothing about the details of this. I've not been told by OLAF."

Junius says: Clark is a liar! OLAF has a duty to inform ANY MEP that is under investigation by the team.

A spokesman for UKIP said he thought the investigation related to a former employee but had not heard anything officially through the European anti-fraud team.

He said he felt people were abusing the fraud investigation process.

"If someone makes a complaint, OLAF has to by law have an investigation and give it a case number which is sent to the complainant."

He said that after 18 months of investigations, Mr Clark had yet to be questioned, and knew nothing about the allegations made against him.

"If there was something to find it would have been found."

Mr Clark lives in Northampton. Police there said they were aware of the case, but it was not a police matter.

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

One of our contacts in Lincolnshire has kindly sent us the following report from The Boston Target.

A LEADING member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has been caught drink-driving in Boston.

Donald Ransome, who is UKIP’s East Midlands regional organiser and has also stood unsuccessfully for seats on Boston Borough Council on several occasions, was stopped by police in London Road at about 3.30am on December 12 after his Ford Mondeo car was seen straddling the central line.

He failed a roadside breath test, was arrested and taken to Boston Police Station where he recorded a breathalyser reading of 57 micrograms of alcohol.

This was more than one-and-a-half times the legal limit of 35 micrograms.

Ransome, 52, of Clarke Court, Wyberton, admitted a drink-driving charge when he appeared at Boston Magistrates Court.

He was banned from getting behind the wheel for 16 months, fined £500 and ordered to pay £85 costs and a £15 victim’s surcharge.

Representing himself in court Ransome, who spearheaded UKIP’s European election campaign in the East Midlands last year, said on the day of the offence he had been at a Christmas party and had "misjudged" how much alcohol he had drunk.

He revealed he had a net weekly income of £800 and agreed to pay his financial penalties within 14 days.

Magistrates were told Ransome had three penalty points on his driving licence from a speeding offence in 2007 but had no previous criminal convictions.

An UKIP spokesman declined to comment on Ransome’s conviction or future with the party.

Lisa PorterReporter

Email: news@targetseries.co.uk

Tel: 01205 315000Boston Office16 Wide BargateBostonLincolnshire

End of article.

We bet UKIP declined to comment!

One can only speculate on Mrs Sue Ransom's reaction to this!

One can only hope that she does not decide to try to sell the family home behind his back and seek pastures new - again!

But then again over £41,000 a year at the taxpayers expense is a BIG incentive not to go!

So what does UKIP intend to do about Mr Ransom? His position in UKIP is clearly untenable.

We would advise them to tell hapless Don to return to his taxi and start earning an honest wage. He could even start working with honest people!